HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6612 Staff AnalysisMarch 29, 1999
Item No.: A
File No.
Owner•
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Z-6612
George and Marie Ingram
8920 Kennesaw Mountain Drive
Lots 65, 66, 67 and 68, Phase I,
Shiloh Addition
R-2
Variances are requested from the
area regulations of Section
36-254 and the building line
provisions of Section 31-12 to
permit construction of a new house
with reduced front yard setback and
which crosses a platted building
line.
The property has a large embankment
and trench across the back of all
four lots. Reducing the front yard
will allow the structure to have a
stable footing without affecting
the embankment or footing.
Vacant lots
Single Family home
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues: No issues.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant has purchased 4 undeveloped lots of the Shiloh
Subdivision and proposes to combine them into one building
site. A large, single-family home is proposed to be
constructed at the end of the cul-de-sac which forms the
western end of Kennesaw Mountain Drive. Due to the slope of
the property, the applicant proposes to construct the house
with a front yard setback of 15 feet. There is currently a
March 29, 1999
Item No.: A (Cont.
platted 25 foot front building line. The Code requires a
front yard setback of 25 feet in the R-2 district.
Staff believes the variance requests to be reasonable. The
lots are located at the end of a cul-de-sac where allowing a
reduced front yard would be less visibly noticeable than if
the property were mid -block with houses to either side. The
additional property owned by the applicant on each side of
the proposed home will help to mitigate the visual impact of
the reduced setback. Being located at the end of a short,
residential cul-de-sac, the reduced setback should have no
impact on traffic in the street. A relatively small area at
the front of the lots is level with the street. Past that
small, level area, the property does slope upwards. Pushing
the house back to provide a 25 foot front yard, would
require greater excavation of the slope.
The site plan submitted with the application proposes
reducing the building line across the front of all four lots
to 15 feet. This is not typically done and staff would not
support such a proposal. The building line variance should
be only in that area where the house is proposed to be
built. The building line should remain at 25 feet elsewhere
across the remainder of the four lots.
Since Lots 65, 66 and 67 are encumbered by the proposed
house, they should be replatted into one lot. The applicant
may choose to include lot 68 in the replat but that is not
necessary.
If the Board approves the building line variance, the
applicant will have to do a one -lot replat reflecting the
change in the building line. The applicant should review
the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's office to
determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of
Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested building line and
front yard setback variances subject to the following
conditions:
March 29, 1999
Item No.: A (Cont.)
1. The variances are only for the area where the new home
is proposed to be built.
2. Lots 65, 66 and 67 must be replatted into a single lot.
Lot 68 may be included but it is not necessary to do so.
3. A one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building
line as approved by the Board.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JANUARY 25, 1999)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that there were problems with the notice
provided by the applicant. Notice was incomplete and late. The
Board reviewed a copy of the notice.
The applicant, Willie Howard, stated that those persons in the
area that he spoke with did not object to the variance.
Brandon Rogers told Mr. Howard that the Board required more
complete notice than he had provided.
A motion was made to defer the item to the February 22, 1999
meeting to allow the applicant to properly notify area property
owners. The motion was approved by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent and 1 open position.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(FEBRUARY 22, 1999)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that there had been no further contact
from the applicant and no proof of notice had been submitted.
Staff stated that numerous attempts had been made to contact the
applicant.
A discussion followed, regarding the Board voting to withdraw the
application.
Staff suggested deferring the item to the March 29, 1999 meeting
to give the applicant one more chance to appear.
A motion was made to defer the item to the March 29, 1999
meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes,
1 absent and 1 open position.
3
March 29, 1999
Item No.: A (Cont.)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MARCH 29, 1999)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested that
the item be withdrawn.
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and withdrawn with a
vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
4